Robert, this is not an attempt to bait you - although you might anticipate
as much from your knowledge of me in the past.
I'm intrigued by the fact that you've seen Scorcese's 'original' cut of
Gangs of New York. On the one hand it intrigues me because I thought the
editing for the cinema release was rather uneven, with some odd passages of
voice-off clearly replacing edited scenes (eg. a Tim Pigott-Smith scene
early on), some incidental music that SUDDENLY cuts in without warning, and
a few plot strands that clearly once had scenes or development and are now
excised.
On the other hand, interpretations of this 'cut' intrigue me even more. For
example, we could be cynical and say that Weinstein is keeping one eye on
the redux market. Having a film that is (in his opinion) over-long gives him
a cloud (a problem with the director) with a silver lining (redux in the
cinema, redux on DVD etc., film soundtrack CD, inspired-by CD etc.). The
problem he has is to decide which to face down, the director or the
corporation. Since DVD sales and rentals easily outstrip cinema tickets in
income it's not hard to see which way he would turn. In many ways, Scorcese
coming up with an over-long film must be a dream come true. Director's vs
producer's cut as high concept element anyone?
However, you suggest that the 'director's cut' of Gangs is ultimately
better, and considering both the narrative flow of the film, and editing
that appears to have been done with Bill Cutting's air tossed cleaver, I'm
inclined to believe you. But being the dyed-in-the-wool nay-sayer I am, I
can't help but feel that any director's preferred version would always
ultimately be 'better' to you. So out of curiosity I ask you and anyone
still reading: is there an occasion of a director's cut being ultimately
worse than the cinema release?
(I ask this because the Blade Runner director's cut has always intrigued me.
Interesting and boring at the same time, the BR debate is an example of
reviewers and academics getting orgasmic about a film (the director's cut)
that was not originally seen in cinemas and whose notability relied upon the
video rentals of the 'inferior' yet quixotically popular product.)
best
Damian
on 23/2/03 7:29 PM, Robert Koehler at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Might I propose a new website? Zeitgeisty.com
> Also, you might check Amy Taubin's review of ``Gangs'' in Film
> Comment--although it leans towards the negative, it points to the most
> interesting aspect of the film, in my opinion. That is, how ``Gangs''
> represents, in actual, visible terms, the contradictory aims and inevitable
> conflicts between art and commerce in today's Hollywood, and how the final
> film (not the longer, non voice-over cut Scorsese originally made, and which
> I've seen) is an ideal result of those conflicts. The release version is
> both exhilarating and unwieldy, making great effort to balance all sorts of
> considerations that often work, and sometimes don't. I think that, despite
> Miramax's undoubted concerns, the radical politics is fairly intact, as is
> the sense of a growing, ruthless war machine looming in the background
> (which does indeed place ``Gangs'' right at the center of our current
> crisis). And even the much-noted ``messiness'' is one of ``Gangs''' charms.
> But next to the earlier cut, it is unquestionably a lesser film than
> Scorsese originally imagined, harmed by changes that he felt forced upon him
> by Miramax. One of Taubin's points is that when making movies at this level
> of expense, you inevitably lose things--such as, in this case, the desire to
> tell your story without voice-over comments making obvious what is plainly
> to be seen on screen. The current version of ``Gangs'' has, at some level, a
> distrust that audiences will get it; but I believe this distrust lies at the
> doorstep not of Scorsese, but to the man he had to cede some control to:
> Harvey Weinstein.
> Robert Koehler
|